analyze_change

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is a changed-file list (not diff content), which is mildly useful but says nothing about pagination, revision resolution, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded. The trailing rationale clause is slightly abstract but not padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no description of the return shape (path format, ordering, renames), and three undocumented parameters remain unexplained. For a tool with 0% schema coverage this leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining them and it does not. The words 'Git revision' loosely gesture at the 'revision' parameter, but 'entity' and 'repo_path' are entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List files changed by a Git revision'. This is clearly a file-list producer rather than a diff viewer, but it never names siblings like git_diff or recent_changes, so distinction is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'as evidence for downstream impact reasoning' implies it is a feed for impact analysis, but no condition tells the agent when to pick this over git_diff or recent_changes, and no exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.